About this Show

Book TV

Brent Bozell Education. (2013) 'Collusion How the Media Stole the 2012 Election and How to Stop Them From Doing It Again.' New.

NETWORK

DURATION
01:01:00

RATING

SCANNED IN
San Francisco, CA, USA

SOURCE
Comcast Cable

TUNER
Channel 17

VIDEO CODEC
mpeg2video

AUDIO CODEC
ac3

PIXEL WIDTH
704

PIXEL HEIGHT
480

TOPIC FREQUENCY

Benghazi 13, Obama 11, Barack Obama 10, United States 9, America 6, Herman Cain 5, Nbc 4, Newt Gingrich 4, Washington 4, Annapolis 3, Us 3, Michele Bachmann 3, Ap 2, Irs 2, Abc 2, Cbs 2, Romney 2, Rick Perry 2, Mitt Romney 2, Rosen 2,
Borrow a DVD
of this show
  CSPAN    Book TV    Brent Bozell  Education.  (2013) 'Collusion How the Media  
   Stole the 2012 Election and How to Stop Them From Doing It...  

    August 24, 2013
    9:00 - 10:01pm EDT  

9:00pm
>> daisy half stir retired educator. given more whites -- then were born and this is what the media is saying. do you see politics in america moving towards the david roeder changing of the guard philosophy class. ..
9:01pm
>> it is affecting people's attitus as they enter the political process, and i believe at this point, the democrats believe that that will work to their advantage, but as i said, these things are organic, and just as bill clinton kind of rethought and redefined the democratic party after three consecutive losses during the reagan and first bush presidencies, there may be a republican on the horizon who will similarly do that and be able to capture the imagination of his or her party, and then win in the national election. it's what keeps people like me going. [laughter] [applause] >> thank you, all, very much. [applause]
9:02pm
>> up next on booktv, arguing the american media aided in the re-election of president barack obama saying the media was consistently critical of the republican party and the nominee, mitt romney, while negligent to do the same with barack obama. this is about 45 minutes. [applause] >> thank you, john, and my thanks to the harming foundation for inviting me. if i cough, i got a ticklish thing going on. i apologize ahead of schedule. okay. so why a book about the media bias? there's an earth shattering topic. when steve forbes came to me in 2010, we were chatting, and he asked me how bad were the media in 2008, really? i said, is 100% in the tank for
9:03pm
barack obama, and he said, well, how is it going to be in 2012? i said, worse. he laughed, said, how could that be? i said in 2008, they didn't care about mccain. in 2012, they will not only be 100% in the tank for barack obama, but they will be 100% committed to the defeat of anyone challenging barack obama. moving forward, and i get a call from an editor at harper collins recommending that i do a book about the 2012 elections and suggested a title "collusion: how the media stole the 2012 elections," and i have to confess i was cold to the idea at first. one, because i didn't think it was an earth shattering topic we didn't know about already, but, secondly, i don't get into hyperbole and collusions, stealing elections. that's not my cup of tea. my colleague, tim grahm, thought otherwise thinking there's more
9:04pm
to the story than we see based on our day-to-day analysis of it, so he went off for about two months with all the research compiled from 2012 and some additional research he gathered from other sources, and he came back, we looked at it, i called the editor, i'll do the book, and we'll call it what you wanted to call it because i can defend it. what we saw in 2012 was beyond what i had thought we were going to see in the sense that it was shameless. there was no attempt whatsoever by the national, quote-on-quote, news media to report news in 2012. from the beginning of the campaign past the end of the campaign, what the media served to do was advance the reelection of barack obama. the man with whom they had -- for whom they invested so much
9:05pm
of their time and efforts in 2008 and were so committed to success. we saw where the politics of commission were concerned. as every republican came forward as a viable challenger to barack obama, he or she was chopped at the knees, not on policy, not on politics, but on personal issues. every single one. just go back and think about it. the first one out of the box, before she even came out of the box, sarah paisly. we had a reporter who took a house next to her vacation house to spy on her, who came out with a book suggesting she does cocaine, suggesting she had sex with basketball players or something. no evidence. whatsoever. just gossip. presented it. she came out with her book. now, folks, those of you who
9:06pm
know anything about the book publishing business know that it's a great honor if you have somebody vet your book. it's not so much of an honor if two people vet your book or three people. ap had nine people reportedly vetting sarah palin's book looking for anything they could find to hit her on, but her critics' book? nobody had anything to say about him. michele bachmann, she's the first one out of the box as a declared candidate. you saw the attacks on her. she was painted as a christian zealot. remember the "time" magazine cover on her? she looked like the devil if the devil were female, that would be michele bachmann. all the stories about her husband's ministry back in minnesota and tieing her to it as if something was wrong because somebody might believe that a homosexual might become a
9:07pm
non-homosexual, that that was an earth shattering development that required national attention? well, she was done with in short order. herman cain comes along. he could have been covered as a sensation, a tea party sensation, as was michele bachmann. instead, what did we learn about herman cain? we learned allegations of a marital infidelity. interesting. in journalism, there is a rule that is sack cro sank. if you don't have two sources, you don't have a story. if you don't have two sources, don't report a story. think about this. there was, i believe i think it was, 78 national network stories on herman cain's alleged infidelities without a single source.
9:08pm
there were over 110 stories, i believe it was in two weeks, beyond an avalanche of coverage on herman cain. that's what america got to know about herman cain. rick perry, nevermind that as a governor he has arguably the single greatest most successful track record of any governor in america today. he was an idiot. he was a doofus. two-pus-two was a challenge for -- two-plus-two was a challenge for this man. then the rock. the rock with the "n word" on the ranch in 1982 when his parents were on vacation, the one they painted over because they found it offensive. national news story. stop the presses. rick perry, texan, oh, a little bit of racism going on there. he's done with. newt gingrich. newt gingrich comes along, and,
9:09pm
boom! we have a breaking explosive story. his former wife doesn't like him. she's given an interview to a network to say it. you know, there's a stop the presses story for you. mitt romney. rick santorum. ladies and gentlemen, think about this. did we need to know who carnet santorumfuls dating before she ever metric santorum? more importantly, did their children deserve to hear these stories? , did it have any bearing on a presidential race other than to smear rick and karen santorum? romney:. mitt romney comes along. this is a delicious apples to
9:10pm
apples comparison. mitt romney has a 5400-word essay devoted to him in the "washington post," and in that essay, we learned, stop the presses here, that when he was, what, 15 or 16? he cut a boy's hair. oh, yes he did. [laughter] we learn at the very same day that barack obama switched his position on gay rights. the boy allegedly was a homosexual. ah-ha! the story is not barack obama switching his position. the point is that we have to cover mitt romney was a homophobe. nevermind this man is now deceased. his parents, his family said that story was false. this boy's family dispiewlted
9:11pm
the story. but there was an essay about it that we had to know about romney's youth. shortly thereafter, same newspaper, 5 # 5 -- 5500 words on barack obama youth. what did we learn there? we learned he loved basketball. barack obama loved basketball. that's the theory -- i mean, that's the signature. that's the take away from his youth. this is a newspaper that would love to do muck raking, but they can't because all they know is that he lovedded basketball. barack obama loved something else in high school. he wrote about it in his own book. he loved to do pot. he was a pot head in high school. he was a member of the chum gang. he writes all about it. how in the world writing a 5500 5500-word essay on barack obama's high school years could
9:12pm
you omit that? if that's not bias by o mages, i don't know -- omission, i don't know what it is. now, is this cataclysmic? did this cause the election in 2012? no. it was the daily grind of coverage in 2012. it went all the way up to and through the debates. candy crowley did was an abomination. the good news on the debate coverage was i never in a million years thought we would get the performance we got from jim lehr and especially bob scheefer. they both did terrific jobs in covering the conventions. they should be applauded. those of us convinced that they would do a terrible job need to say so, but candy, she's the one i would have put money on would be the objective journalist as a
9:13pm
moderator, and she was the one who saved barack obama. in what would have been a cataclysmic second debate defeat. when barack obama announced, declared that on the night of the benghazi attacks, he denounced the attack as being a terrorist attack. remember the picture from mitt romney looking at him in disbelief as if to say i can't believe you just made me the next president of the united states? in came candy saying, no, no, no, mitt romney, that's not true. the president's right to which barack obama looked at her with the same startled look, and said, say it again. i want everybody to hear that. he couldn't believe the assist he just got from candy. he was wrong. she was wrong. mitt romney lost the golden moment in that debate. now, i'm not suggesting it is
9:14pm
the sole reason he lost. he lost for an alphabet soup of reasons. i still keep counting them. yesterday, for mitt romney to come out and say that defunding obamacare is not a good strategic move. mitt romney has a lot of advice, but not on strategy. mitt romney didn't know what hit him. a tremendous disservice was done to mitt romney and to the republicans. that disservice that was done continued, and this is the remarkable thing. just as the obama campaign did not stop on election day, so too has this not stopped since election day. now, going into the elections, think about the number of scandals involving barack obama that could have been and should have been covered.
9:15pm
as you think about these, just ask yourself, do we know what happened? simple. do we know what happened? solyndra and all the other green companies that got hundreds of millions of dollars, it going to obama supporters. do we know what happened to that money? total billions of dollars. fast and furious. do we know who authorized it? do we know what happened? do we know where the guns are now? do we know it's ended? little things. eric holder announcing he's not going to prosecute black panther leaders who intimidate voters. why? how could he make that kind of a judgment? big things, benghazi.
9:16pm
on election night, think about this -- sorry, the night that benghazi broke, think about this. how much time was devoted the day after -- the day after the benghazi attacks, how much time was devoted to mitt romney and the statements he made about benghazi by the networks? answer? nine minutes, 25 seconds. how much time was devoted to barack obama in the obama administration and their handling of benghazi? 28 seconds. how is this news? how it is this fair? how, in any way, is this a semblance of objective journalism? there were so many of these scandals that were unraveling. obamacare, never mind what you think of obamacare. it is scandalous to see the results of obama care. given what the american people were promised. we were promised rates wouldn't
9:17pm
go up. they are skyrocketing for everybody. we were promising it was not going to cost more than $900-some million, and it's $3 billion now and raising. we were told you could keep your own health insurance, but guess what? you are losing it. on and on and on things promised were not so. isn't that something that deservedded to be covered? it being the signature policy issue of the obama administration. tell me where the coverage was. show me where they covered that issue. you can't. on election night, obama wins, the next day, obama continues, the campaign continues. the media campaign for barack obama has not stopped. think about it. look at the scandals today. i want you to ask yourself the importance of the scape dales. i'm going to use richard nickon
9:18pm
as the comparative here. i'm going to use water gate as a comparative here. let's take first benghazi. if it is true that this administration, for political reasons did not offer the military support that might have saved the lives of four men, one of them being the ambassador to libya, is that more important than a break-in at water gate? fast and furious. if it is true that this administration through its attorney general counted the
9:19pm
sale of arms in mexico that led to the death of an american agent and reportedly 2 # -- 200 mexicans, is that more important than water gate? the irs scandal. if it is true, that this administration is come police sit in an effort to use the most fearedded arm of government against its own citizenry for political purposes, is that more important than water gate? now, that could be a judgment call. how anybody disputes it, i'll never know, but should it be worthy of some coverage by somebody in the press?
9:20pm
how in the world can you say this is news? i pulled out the numbers for you. in my pocket, i have a list. just to give you semblance of the world around you. the irs. this has been covered by nbc since june 27th not at all. in fact, there was one reference, not even a story on nbc. abc has not touched the story in six weeks. even as we see one development after another, such as the story that it was seeped to rogue agents in cincinnati is about as honest as a story about a video in benghazi. the fact that various people are doing things like taking the fifth, i mean, this, and now,
9:21pm
what have we learned? it is, if not at the front step, it is at the back door of the obama administration. barack obama's political appointees to the irs was getting reports, requesting and getting those reports. how is that not a story? well, in the month of july, cbs did a story totaling 9 # seconds, that, ladies and gentlemen, is the totality of the irs scandal for the american people. they have deliberately -- no other way of putting this, they have deliberately chosen not to cover an enormous scandal that if it were a republican, would bring down the administration. benghazi. what did they cover? well, the last time there was a
9:22pm
news story on benghazi, ready? may 16th. think about it. may 16th. what do we know about benghazi? we don't know anything about benghazi. that's what we know. where are the interviews with the people there? can you name me a single interview with anyone there? they had not been interviewedded, can't be found for some such reason. last night, the first coverage, what did we hear? a libyan has been charged. it took, what, eight months to see who was doing it? in the story last night, not one reference to the fact that this administration blamed it on a video, not one reference to the fact that this video, no one took responsibility for, putting that statement out, not one
9:23pm
reference to the investigation, not one reference to the statement made by numerous officials connected with the military and safety of the embassies saying these four men's lives could have been saved. not one reference to it. what about another issue that hits home to them? what about wiretapping of themselves? do you think you'd be upset if you were wiretapped and if your colleagues were wiretapped? would that be a story? james rosen. james rosen. an unindicted co-conspirator named so by the justice department for the crime of
9:24pm
journalism, for simply trying to investigate these stories. an accusation backed up by the attorney general of the united states. if that's not an outrage to the journalism community, what could be? last time there was a story done on that? june 6th. what about the wiretapping of ap reporters? going into their files. that's a whole company they went after, and we don't know if it's just ap, but we know it was ap you'd think there would be outrage. i want to know what the administration is doing to me. how dare they wiretap my phones and get my e e-mails. i'm a journalist. how dare they do this. i want answers.
9:25pm
last time they did that, they don't want answers. where does it leave us? it leaves us today point that barack obama can do the politically impossible. he can dismiss these as phoney scandals. people are stunned. how can you dismiss the murder of an american border agent as a phoney scandal? tell that to the family of brian terry. how can you dismiss the death, the murders of four american citizens in benghazi, including ambassador stevens, the man you reported to care so much about, as a phoney scandal? how can you dismiss the greatest possible abuse of government power sticking the irs on its
9:26pm
citizens as a phoney scandal? why? because barack obama can. because you all don't understand why because you are the average american out there who might rely on abc, nbc, cbs, cnn, "new york times," or the "washington post," for your news. if you have, you have just heard noise, and barack obama can now come in and say, it's nothing but noise. i'm trying to do my job. i'm trying to do what the president of the united states must do, and these republicans are muddying everything up with these phoney scandals, and it's working. so, ladies and gentlemen, if you don't think media bias is a problem, i can't help you. if the republican party doesn't understand that it is its number one priority to do something
9:27pm
about it, it will never come out of the weeds. that's why i wrote the book. thank you. i'll take questions. [applause] >> he'll recognize the questioners, and state jr. name and affiliation. it would be appreciated as a curtesy. i'll let you start off. yes, sir? >> wait for the microphone, thanks. >> tyler with the christian post. focusing on the effects of the 2012 election and your findings in your book about media bias, how would you connect that to the christian communities, specifically, and how has the media really damaged their standing in america? >> let's give one organization as an example, family research counsel. a man -- my good buddy's here,
9:28pm
and he and i have breakfast there every wednesday, and i sometimes wonder why. a man walked into that office building last summer with a gun, and opened fire, and it was only because of the heroic effort of a security guard who was shot, that lives were saved. this man came in with a bag full of chick filet sandwiches with the intention of puts one next to the cadaver of every person he shot. is that a news story? ya think! it was not covered. how is it not news? meanwhile, you've got the -- a radical left wing group, the southern poverty law center, proclaiming that the family research council, a christian organization is a hate group,
9:29pm
and that's not covered. they are. the law center has instant credibility in whatever they do and say. they are not covered. the antagonism towards the christian community transcends antagonism. it is outright bigotry against christians. the press are enablers of it. there's no two ways of putting it. you are not allowed to have a thought nevermind speak it, that you'd believe that traditional marriage is between a man and a woman. to believe that the right to life is a sacred right puts you, nevermind the majority of americans believe this, but in this town, in that industry, it makes you a nut job. you report it that way. the hostility of the christians is profound, profound in the news media, ad i see it
9:30pm
lightening up at all. yes, sir? >> hi, i'm michael cellular phone, a ph.d. math student at george mason, here mostly for the interest in the abortion issue and what can be done about the media coverage of it. my question is whether the -- i have wondered myself whether a candidate to be successful by pushing the nut job identity in the media early on proactively, in other words, you know, saying i can't believe people are listening to these people, i mean, and using examples like the one you gave, but in that tone. >> if i were a campaign manager, that's exactly what i would say. what was the single golden shining moment for newt gingrich? in georgia, he took on the media. he catapulted to fist place. he did it twice. that was not spontaneous. nothing newt gingrich does is
9:31pm
spontaneous. that was very well thought out. he's a master strategist. it was the right thing to do. it catapulted him into first place. look, you talked about how up popular the congress is. the media are more unpopular than congress. i saw one, the approval rating is 8%. you know, that's nothing to write home about. it is not a very wise thing to go out to middle america saying, hi, i'm a reporter for the washington post. that's going to win you friends. it should be the position of a candidate running to give them one chance, to say at the outset, i'm going to give you one chance to be fair and balanced. if you're not, i'm coming after you. i'm going to make you the issue in this campaign. it will take no effort whatsoever to do that. i always believed to give them an opportunity. always give them the first opportunity; then e vis rate
9:32pm
them. yes, sir? >> jordan hess, i'm a senate staffer. where does social media fit into this? is that a way around the tv and news and a way -- it looks like a lot of what is getting done and from the conservative standpoint, our message seems to be working via facebook and twitter and those avenues where to benefit in all this. >> very good point. social media and the interpret, the dimming media as a whole, present a tremendous opportunity for conservatives to communicate with one another. kind of feel sometimes like the early christian church makes the sign of a fish when i talk to a fellow conservative. [laughter] you can do that now through the internet, and nobody can get in your way, and the "washington post" can't distort what you say
9:33pm
and cbs can't distort what you say, and nbc can't distort what you say, but you can communicate directly with fellow man. it is an awesome weapon that we have. their days, their monopoly is broke p. there's no question about it. they are still powerful. they command audiences in the million, but the numbers are going down, down, down every day. i mean, you just saw what happened. the new -- "new york times" sold the boston globe at a 97% loss. i mean, france does better business deals than that. [laughter] >> over paid. >> they over paid, probably. $250 million, that's chump change compared to what it was worth ten years ago. the writing's on the wam for them, but we now have a vehicle to mitigate why so many people don't understand that, and those who do are doing very, very well, but i will caution you. i mean, we have the -- i think
9:34pm
we have the largest social media army in the movement now. we have three and a half million for america, but i will caution you something about the internet and about social media. we have to be very care. we are very critical of liberals in the old media who don't follow the rules. in the new media, there are no rules. it's the wild, wild west, and as a result, some pretty nasty things can happen. you know, i've seen them happen on both sides, much more so by liberals, but the way stories are spread, the rumors that percolate out there, the damage they do is enormous. conservatives, be careful. i've seen that too. i've seen the black helicopter stories. i've seen the stories where they go with one source, that being my crazy cousin, and out the story comes. why? they get io balls, readers, gets
9:35pm
you advertising. not a good thing to do for the movement. it is a vehicle, it's the future, by the way, their days are only numbered. it is the future. we have to be as responsible as we possibly can be because if that medium is abused, then we lose all credibility. yes, sir? >> in addition to actually attacking the media, how else can we stop them from doing it again in 2016 without giving away the whole book? any other pearls of wisdom? >> well, you know, i believe that i would like to have a a massachusetts ratty in the driveway and i believe the media will do a good job in 2016. neither is going to happen, so long as i continue being blinded by that reality, so, too, am i
9:36pm
going to suffer. i was so pleased to see what prebus did, standing up to nbc and cnn and say, you're going to do this kind of one-sided -- doing a mini series on hillary clinton for god's sakes. we're not going to play. you know what? they don't need to play. they don't need to do an interview, and even barack obama plays that game. you know, he goes on leno, but he goes -- he, just in the wild case he's asked a tough question, never coming from matt lauer, but if somebody else might ask a tough question, he just doesn't do the interviews. republicans don't need to either. why go on there? what i tell my republican friends, if you go to a national interview, one, make it live, nothing taped. i don't trust the sobs. number two, if a reporter distorts something, it's live,
9:37pm
call them out on national television. mr. so and sioux, what you just said is incorrect. here's the fact. please, look at the camera, correct it. to your millions of listeners and viewers. these are the facts. make them sweat. make them tell the truth. put them on the hot seat. they are going to put you on the hot seat, put them right back on the hot seat. if they conduct an honorable honest, it could be a smash mouth interview, brass knuckles, i don't have a problem with that as long as it's honest, and honorable, and you do it to the other side as well, but if they do not play by the rules, why participate? that's the first rule to them is stand up to them and be very choosey about who you talk to. you don't need them. they need you. yes, sir? >> jeff, counsel for america. you eluded to how candy threw a
9:38pm
lifeline to barack obama, and i wonder in 2016 what your suggestion would be as to how the states should be structured in both the primaries and general elections because in the primaries, you know, with george cornering mitt romney on the contraception question, he threw that debate out. >> sure, sure, there was a lot of got-you moments, and, you know, george did was shameful. boy, there's another news flash. contraception was never a part of the campaign, but it was what barack obama wanted. barack obama kept bringing it up. now, you expect a politician to do those kind of shenanigans, but for a journalist to have given him oxygen that way is beyond the pail. i have a lot more problems with george doing this than barack obama doing this. okay? moving forward to the other debates, i don't know that i want to get involved in the
9:39pm
debate about debate about the number of debates. that's somebody else's game to play, not mine, but i think republicans have to be much, much choosier about these debates. you know, after every election, republicans complain about the debates, when, in fact, they agreed to everything in the debates. there's so much blame you can cast on the other side before you take responsibility yourself. why were there no presidential debates hosted by fox? democrats said they would not participate in one with fox. republicans should have said, fine, we'll up you. we're not going to participate with cnn, msnbc, and nbc. how you like them apples? republicans could win that debate. a republican could say, we'll go on breitbart, a debate with news
9:40pm
max. guess what? you can reach just as many people that way too. they got to be choosier on what they do. when you pick a network, pick a reporter that has a history of being fair and balanced. judy woodruff dumped. does that help? i'm being unfair to her. there's plenty who don't. >> former news intern. off the wall question, but i wonder -- >> can i give you an off the wall answer? >> sure, that's cool. it was an off the wall question. i wonder if you or anyone else had the chance to look at the development of all the way things go in the international media and how they boomerang into the u.s. media because i watch the international news, and whoever was taken down by smear tactics with stockwell in
9:41pm
canada when the media said he said something creationist, and by the end of the campaign, the campaign bus sang "meet the flinstopes" driving off, and now they import strategists in attempt to turn the conservatives down there over the fact he was by the wall in the 19 # 70s, so has anyone looked at how it is proliferating all over? >> well, i think that this is different overseas because the people know the nature of the media, and in in the 1980s, you had two newspapers.
9:42pm
it was the mouthpiece. the people knew it. they knew they were getting a communism position here and a conservative position there. that was not too problematic. it's not too problematic, i think, in so many places, but i think it's more problematic when you don't have the media, and in countries with a dwindling free press as in russia. the problem is when their media come on our shores because we're so gullible. there's a reason why russian tribes has a television station in the united states. it's not because they want to be a news operation for the united states. it is because they have a mission in the united states. there is a reason j al jazeera
9:43pm
is in the united states. it's not because they want to come alongside fox. it's because they have a mission in the united states. too many of our citizenry are oblivious to this. they are o belief yous to the agenda of bbc, and so i worry about the impact it has on them. i don't worry so much about the impact these outlets have on their people. i think they have an understanding of where they are coming from. yes, sir? >> am media. do you see the current new york city mayor race impacting the 2016 national elections, and would you suggest or have any ideas for media strategies for those political opponents of anthony wiener, his wife, and those in the political orbits? >> must i? [laughter]
9:44pm
well, this really just points to the triteness of the journalism today. how embarrassing. how embarrassing that they have to report it the way they are reporting. the people of new york deserve what they get when they allow someone like weiner or spitzer back into the public arena, but for the news media to cover that with nonstop shock-and-awe, while ignoring everything i just talked about for them to do 193 stories, i could be wrong, but i think it's 193 stories in one week or less than that on the birth of the baby in england.
9:45pm
you know, god love the couple. after one story, i was done. 193 stories. irs, benghazi, nsa, wiretapping, nah, what is it, too difficult? when they do the wiener kind of stuff, you know, i don't know what to suggest. where republicans are concerned? it is such a double standard. i don't have the numbers, but we covered it, and there's reports on this. when there is a scandal involving a democrat, it is stunning to see the degree to which they go to say it's not a democrat. now, the abc's of journalism, it's there a story on elected officials, and you, know, the next thing as important as this first name and last name is the party affiliation. story after story after story,
9:46pm
and we have seen if with one scandal after another after another whether the mayor is going to jail or whether you're the governor of illinois, you know, it just goes on and on and on. they just obliterate the label, but if you're a republican, it leads with republican. you see that coverage. it is stunning the double standard. this is something republicans have to live with, but republicans are treated this way because they allowed the media to treat them this way. this is why the republican party has to stand up which is why i applaud the chairman of the party for having this done. there's more to do. these candidates and these party leaders have to stand up to the press. we're not asking for favoritetism, but fairness. if not, we go after the
9:47pm
stockholders, to your boards, and we're going to make an issue out of you if your corporate sponsors say, bye-bye, we'll be on the dock saying good-bye. that has to be the position that republican party officials take on this or don't complain. thank you very much, i appreciate it. [applause] >> thank you, brent, and there's copies of the book available in the foyer if you want to purchase them. he will stay on the stage and signs book afterwards: thank you for the kind attention and hope to see you again soon in the future. [inaudible conversations]
9:48pm
>> this is a town that's throughout the colonial period up until emancipation, but i didn't realize how bad the jim crowe movement had been after the war in the early 1900s, and that i found a real shock. annapolis was one of the two cases decided in bsh by the supreme court of the united states, in 1915 for the grandfather clause. if you google "grandfather clause," you get grim versus
9:49pm
oklahoma, and this is an oklahoma case that deals with some restrictions on voting. in that case as well was a case involving a law passed in 1908 changing the charter of the city of annapolis to restrict voting by african-americans, and now, they are free, and they have been voting, and it applied only to the city, not state elections, and they tenned to vote republicans so the state government and in the city wanted to restrict this. you couldn't vote under the 1908 law unless you had $500 worth of property in the city, unless you were naturalized or son of a natural citizen, and if you're a naturalized citizen or if your grandfather could have voted in
9:50pm
january first 1868. well, in 1868, voting in indianapolis is tied to the 1867 constitution of maryland which allowed voting only to males, white males. if your grandmother was not a white male and couldn't vote, you couldn't vote, no matter the 15th amendment in 1870. in indianapolis, if you couldn't vote in 1868, you couldn't vote in 1908. >> more about maryland state capital as book tv and american history tv look at the literary life of annapolis. >> here are the latest hetlines surrounding the publishing industry this week.
9:51pm
9:52pm
>> in the last few years, the left decided the political debate is worthless not debating policy. they are not debating what is the best way to solve the nation's problems. they are not going to provide eve. they are going to label us morally deficient human beings unworthy of debate. >> ben schapiro takes calls and comments for three hours live at noon eastern and looking ahead, civil rights leader, congressman louis is october's guest, and kitty kelly december 3rd, and on january 5th, radio talk show
9:53pm
host mark levine. >> here are the best selling hard cover nonfiction books according to the "new york times" reflecting sales as of august 22.
9:54pm
9:55pm
>> introducing you to the director of the yale university press. we're going a preview of some of the books coming up this fall. what's some yale has coming out? >> a big fall for us, excited about a number of things. one is the app generation by howard gardener and katie davis. howard gardener is probably one of the country's top educational psychologists around, and he has a theory called multiple intelligences, which is really transformed the way we think about education, and the way kids fare in schools and throughout college, which is to say there's not just one aptitude or kind of intelligence that tests well or answers in conversation of the classroom, but there's intuitive intelligences, a lot of emotional intelligences, and herself the first person to codify and cohere them in a human mind. he's now, for the first time in
9:56pm
his career, turning attention to the digital generation, to the app generation, and thousand these kids coming up, born with an ipad in their hands, reading on the ipad for the first time in their life, seeing how things are truly interactive, and how that changes the cognitive development of the child, the social aid and abet to engage out there, and i think this is a ground breaking book by a true master of how we operate in the world and how we're adapting. it's exciting. >> well, another book coming up this fall is if mayors ruled the world. >> benjamin barr beer wrote a best seller called "jihad versus the world," and this book is interesting. look at the most die dynamic pee in our political currency now, whether it's mayor bloomberg in new york or corey robertson in
9:57pm
newark and major cities getting things done on a very microlevel, and why can't the same thing happen on an international or national level? why are national politics paralyzed? able to move the ball or open the envelope even. he looks about the sort of ways in which mayors operate in the political sphere and tries to see if that can be applied to the national sphere, really interesting thing. it's a national book, but also international looking at mayors all over the world, bangkok, london, hong kong, fascinating stuff. >> david hart has a new book. >> he wrote a book a couple years ago called "atheist illusions," where he took a look at some of the -- what they call the angry atheists, people like christopher hitchens, daniel, and richard dawkins and wonder why in this particular moment there was such hostility to
9:58pm
religion by public intellectuals, and in this book, he really wants to get aside from the politics of it all and look across the nominations with the experience of god, how people across different faiths understand god as an emotional and spiritual presence in their live, and it's a gorgeous book, an amazing writer, a great stylist of the list, and this is a real opportunity to sit with a major theologian and wonder how god is experienced across faiths, very emotionally true book, spiritually rich, and i think a real eye opener, really pleased about it. >> that's a quick look at the books coming out by yale university press this fall. >> when you write a book, i mean, a lot can go wrong. that's how i approach the world. i mean, i'm somewhat neurotic in the writing and reporting, and a lot can go wrong in 110,000
9:59pm
words. i've been pretty shocked by, i guess if there's been criticism from inside, it's been moesly in the vain of how dare he, meaning how dare an insider give away the secret hand shake, and how dare they talk about other way that perhaps might not be in keeping with the codes we have in washington, and people ask why are people uncomfortable, and i welcome the uncomfort, but this is what we do, invite the comfort. >> book club returns next month with "this town," read the book, engage on facebook and on twitter, look for daily posts starting december 3 #rd to get the conversation going, including discussion questions, links to interviews of the author, reviews of the book, and video from our booktv archives. >> up next on booktv
10:00pm
"afterwords" with a former special master of the federal september 1 1th victim compensation fund. .. and the author of a very important new book, "battle for ground zero" inside the political struggle to rebuild the world trade center. this